Service Law – Regularization – Group ‘D’ workers engaged on casual basis at the Institute in question (under the administrative control of Comptroller and Auditor General of India) not regularized despite long years of service – Central Administrative Tribunal mandated preparation of seniority list and for working out the possibility of regularizing services of the casual workers – Order affirmed by the High Court – Casual workmen moved Tribunal stating that despite the specific directions of the Tribunal to observe seniority, persons below in seniority regularized – Tribunal directed the authorities to accord the benefit of regularization to the casual workers as accorded to their juniors – Challenged by Union of India – High Court confirmed the order, also directing that even if posts in the Institute are not available, casual workers who claimed regularization be considered in other places where Group ‘D’ posts are available – Propriety of – Held: Direction to consider the casual workers for regularization in other establishments was not justified – Original order passed by the Tribunal did not contain mandamus for regularization – Order mandated that seniority list should be maintained by the Union of India and that the possibility of regularizing the casual workmen at the Institute should be considered against existing and future vacancies in Group ‘D’ posts – Acting on the basis of the decision of the Tribunal, affirmed by the High Court, Union of India proceeded to formulate seniority list and, in fact, regularized at least four individuals – Action of selecting juniors for regularization, by-passing in the process, persons who had put in longer years of service was manifestly unfair and arbitrary – Picking up individuals for regularization, while ignoring seniors shows that a favoured few have been rewarded – Arbitrariness in the conduct of the authorities at the Institute is writ large – Having decided to implement the decision of the Tribunal, affirmed by the High Court, the Union of India must follow a rational principle and abide strictly by the seniority list in proceeding to regularize the workmen concerned – Such persons who are available for regularization on the basis of vacancies existing at present, be considered in accordance with law – Indian Audit and Accounts Department Multi-Tasking Staff Recruitment Rules, 2011. Group ‘D’ workers, engaged on casual basis at the Regional Training Institute, claimed before the Central Administrative Tribunal that despite long years of service they were not regularized. The Tribunal inter alia issued directions for working out the possibility of regularizing services of the casual workers. The order was affirmed by the High Court. Casual workmen moved the Tribunal stating that despite the specific directions of the Tribunal to observe seniority, persons below in seniority were regularized. The Tribunal directed the authorities to accord the benefit of regularization to the casual workers as accorded to their juniors. High Court while confirming the order of the Tribunal directed that even if posts in the Institute are not available, the casual workers who claimed regularization be considered in other places where Group ‘D’ posts are available. Hence the present appeals.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the present case, the original order passed by the Tribunal did not contain a mandamus for regularization. The order mandated that a seniority list should be maintained by the Union of India and that the possibility of regularizing the casual workmen at the Regional Training Institute should be considered against existing and future vacancies in Group ‘D’ posts. Acting on the basis of the decision of the Tribunal, which was affirmed by the High Court, the Union of India proceeded to formulate a seniority list and, in fact, regularized at least four individuals. The judgment of the High Court attained finality. The Tribunal justifiably held that the action of selecting juniors for regularization, by-passing in the process, persons who had put in longer years of service was manifestly unfair and arbitrary. This direction of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the High Court in its impugned decision. The arbitrariness in the conduct of the authorities at the Institute is writ large in the facts of this case. Picking up individuals for regularization, while ignoring seniors shows that a favoured few have been rewarded. This is arbitrary. [Para 19][326-B-D]
1.2 The judgment of this Court in Uma Devi does not preclude the claims of employees who seek regularization after the exercise has been undertaken with respect to some employees, provided that the said employees have completed the years of service as mandated by Uma Devi. The ruling casts an obligation on the State and its instrumentalities to grant a fair opportunity of regularization to all such employees entitled according to the mandate under Uma Devi and ensure that the benefit is not conferred on a limited few. The subsequent regularization of employees who have completed the requisite period of service is to be considered as a continuation of the one-time exercise. [Para 23] [328-G; 329-A-B]
1.3 The High Court directed the Union of India to absorb the casual workmen, if it is not possible at the Institute in question, then in any other establishment. The latter part of the direction cannot be sustained. Equally, the authorities cannot be heard to throw their hands in despair by submitting that there are no vacancies and that it had already regularized such of the persons in the seniority list, who reported for work. The Tribunal entered a finding of fact that this defence is clearly not borne out of the record. Having decided to implement the decision of the Tribunal, which was affirmed by the High Court, the Union of India must follow a rational principle and abide strictly by the seniority list in proceeding to regularize the workmen concerned. Accordingly, it is directed that the case for regularization shall be considered strictly in accordance with the seniority list in pursuance of the directions which were issued by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court and such of the persons, who are available for regularization on the basis of vacancies existing at present, shall be considered in accordance with law. The Tribunal had denied back-wages but ordered a notional fixation of pay and allowances. While affirming that direction, it is also directed that persons who have crossed the age of superannuation will be entitled to the computation and payment of their retiral dues on that basis. If it becomes necessary to grant age relaxation to the concerned workmen, the appellants shall do so. [Para 26] [329-G-H; 330-A-E]
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 : [2006] 3 SCR 953 – followed.
State of Karnataka v. M L Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247 : [2010] 9 SCR 543 ; Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand (2018) 8 SCC 238 – relied on.
Malathi Das v. Suresh (2014) 13 SCC 249 :
[2014] 3 SCR 637 ; Prem Ram v. Managing Director Uttarakhand Pey Jal and Nirman Nigam
Dehradun (2015) 11 SCC 255 : [2015] 7 SCR 192
– referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.